6 ms·
> do not accept that there is a difference between computation and thought without some meaningful definition of thought. If I know everything about the nature
by lurquer 6y ago
> do not accept that there is a difference between computation and thought without some meaningful definition of thought.
If I know everything about the nature of X, yet I know very little about the nature of Y, it would be illogical to say "I will assume Y is like X until proven otherwise."
- michaelmrose 6y agoI think computation as a model of cognition is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that will bear fruit and at least it IS a hypothesis instead of hand waving. It is worse to imagine that there is a physical process that exists wholly in the physical world that happens in the world within reasonable parameters cannot possibly be engineered to happen in a controlled fashion. This is a proof that would require a major shift in physics and math and yet we are expected to accept it purely based on intuition without even a compelling theory of how it does work.
- lurquer 6y agoIt is worthwhile to pursue artificial cognition. Just as it was worthwhile to pursue manned flight. The difference, though, is that the Wright Brothers were never foolish enough to arrogantly say a bird is actually a type of airplane...
- michaelmrose 6y agoA bird is a mechanical device to achieve heavier than air flight.